A believer’s fallacy

[TEG]

It seems as though there is a formal logical fallacy underlying many believers’ attempts to convert nonbelievers:  “I am convinced that F is true, therefore you have to believe it too.”  (I would call it the believer’s fallacy, but that term is sometimes used differently.)  It would seem to arise from a lack of proper interpersonal boundaries, the inability to grasp the fact that other people may think and see the world differently from you.  “Of course god exists; how can you possibly not believe it?”  And it may be an ego thing, wanting to tell everyone else not just what to do, but what to think.  “The bible is god’s word, therefore I have the right to tell you what to believe and how to live.”  And as long as a person clings to this kind of reasoning, he/she is impossible to reason with.

It would be related to the following formal fallacies (read about them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies; and obviously there are others that show up during this kind of argument as well).

Argumentum ad populum (“argument to the people”)
A fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many people believe it.
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
(I would say that the believer’s fallacy similarly appeals to one’s own personal beliefs.)

Argument from incredulity
It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive “gut” reaction.
Expressed negatively:  I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
(“I cannot imagine how anyone could not believe in god.”)

Ipse dixit (“he himself said it”)
An assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion.
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely; the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.

Truthiness
The belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
An appeal to emotion and “gut feeling” as a rhetorical device.

[Joshpantera]

 The believers fallacy points towards feeling uneasy that someone else doesn’t believe what you believe. As in it outlines the fact that your belief could be wrong. Not everyone believes it. A narcissistic response to the possibility of being wrong in ones belief comes back as the believers fallacy. 
 

There may be other examples, but this is one that I’ve noticed a lot from religious authoritarians. Not to mention the biblical writers. 

[Geezer]

The listed reasons why believers don’t understand why there are those that don’t believe and aren’t religious can be reversed and apply to those that aren’t believers. We also wonder why “they” don’t get it and we use arguments and techniques similar to their’s as evidence to prove Deities and the a supernatural realm doesn’t exist.

 

It seems to me that the fallacy of religion is just one of those things that people have to figure out on their own.

[TEG]

So if someone insists that you believe in the spaghetti monster because they feel it inside, and you say you don’t because there is no evidence, do you see an equivalence between those two sides of the argument?

[midniterider]

 

1 hour ago, TEG said:

So if someone insists that you believe in the spaghetti monster because they feel it inside, and you say you don’t because there is no evidence, do you see an equivalence between those two sides of the argument?

 

Not sure equivalence between the arguments is the issue. The problem imo is getting angry when someone doesnt see reality the same as you. Like you said, these people lack proper personal boundaries and have an inability to grasp the fact that other  people may think and see the world differently from you

 

I have to rein in my ego when people dont agree with me. It's a challenge sometimes. It  may be good to maintain some apathy or at least not take ones own philosophy too seriously. It's not important that people agree with me ...(my god, what did I just SAY!!!!!) haha. 

 

I agree with Geezer that non-believers (Matt Dillahunty?) can employee the same type of pushy behavior that theists sometimes employee...it isnt limited to religion either. Someone asked me who I voted for and was absolutely flabbergasted at my response....another time I was registered with Party A and voted for Party B candidate. Someone asked me who I voted for and was taken aback. People and their silliness. 

 

 

[LeiaBryant]

On 11/30/2019 at 2:32 PM, TEG said:

It seems as though there is a formal logical fallacy underlying many believers’ attempts to convert nonbelievers:  “I am convinced that F is true, therefore you have to believe it too.”  (I would call it the believer’s fallacy, but that term is sometimes used differently.)  It would seem to arise from a lack of proper interpersonal boundaries, the inability to grasp the fact that other people may think and see the world differently from you.  “Of course god exists; how can you possibly not believe it?”  And it may be an ego thing, wanting to tell everyone else not just what to do, but what to think.  “The bible is god’s word, therefore I have the right to tell you what to believe and how to live.”  And as long as a person clings to this kind of reasoning, he/she is impossible to reason with.

It would be related to the following formal fallacies (read about them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies; and obviously there are others that show up during this kind of argument as well).

Argumentum ad populum (“argument to the people”)
A fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many people believe it.
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
(I would say that the believer’s fallacy similarly appeals to one’s own personal beliefs.)

Argument from incredulity
It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive “gut” reaction.
Expressed negatively:  I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
(“I cannot imagine how anyone could not believe in god.”)

Ipse dixit (“he himself said it”)
An assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion.
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is “just how it is” distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely; the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.

Truthiness
The belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
An appeal to emotion and “gut feeling” as a rhetorical device.

I agree with all of these except the last one. Intuition is a powerful thing not to be underestimated. It  and intention ( will power ) are the bedrocks on which all magick is built . 

[TEG]

4 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

Intuition is a powerful thing not to be underestimated.

 

I agree that intuition can sometimes cut through a difficult conundrum, as if your unconscious mind knows something that your conscious one doesn’t.  But as part of a reasoned argument, an appeal to intuition is still a logical fallacy.  And I would not build my whole life on it.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

“Of course god exists; how can you possibly not believe it?” Paul uses this one a lot. He was indoctrinated in religious school for years, and then starts making the argument that this god is obvious from nature. That isn't at ALL how he arrived at this god, and his conditioning led to a lot of bias confirmation, which fit well with his general attitude. That is the same line we see in much of the scriptures, that god is obvious and already known to be true, but we wicked nasty pig dogs would rather wallow in filthy sin and eat vomit than come into the light. 

[LeiaBryant]

2 minutes ago, TEG said:

 

I agree that intuition can sometimes cut through a difficult conundrum, as if your unconscious mind knows something that your conscious one doesn’t.  But as part of a reasoned argument, an appeal to intuition is still a logical fallacy.  And I would not build my whole life on it.

I would not trust someone else's intuition but I trust my own with my life.

[LeiaBryant]

 By the way my magick spells are usually a type of candle magick.  There are a lot of kinds of it.  Here some info about it:  https://youtu.be/dh5BkcH_3Bg

I recommend this YouTube channel for beginner witches if anyone here is interested.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, LeiaBryant said:

I would not trust someone else's intuition but I trust my own with my life.

 
The curve ball here is that my lack of belief was intuitive, originally. I had no fancy knowledge base behind it. No well read foundation in reading the history of atheism. I had to trust my better judgement, intuition and instincts which were telling me that everyone at church and on school campus were deluded, blind sheep. 
 

I had nothing to prove it with. Just being observant and paying attention to what people were saying, how they were acting, and what my conclusions were based on all of the above. 
 

I’m not inclined to under estimate my own intuition. But I do have to agree with TEG that if I were to try and launch a debate based on this alone, the other side could hit me immediately with accusations of logical fallacies. Of course the same said people are bound to logical fallacies of their own. But I could fall into the same quick sand if I depended on intuition alone. 
 

Outside of some technical philosophical setting, intuition has been very practical for me. Even to the extent of my lack of god belief. But also in everyday life, business and day to day circumstances. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, LeiaBryant said:

 By the way my magick spells are usually a type of candle magick.  There are a lot of kinds of it.  Here some info about it:  https://youtu.be/dh5BkcH_3Bg

I recommend this YouTube channel for beginner witches if anyone here is interested.

 
We do need to stay on topic here. Magick  is better to discuss in the spirituality section. We get into that in several threads there. Check out the discussions about Dean Radin, for example. 

[LeiaBryant]

50 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 
We do need to stay on topic here. Magick  is better to discuss in the spirituality section. We get into that in several threads there. Check out the discussions about Dean Radin, for example. 

How do I post in the spiritual section?

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/17/2020 at 11:41 PM, LeiaBryant said:

How do I post in the spiritual section?

 

 

@TheRedneckProfessor may be able to beam you in. Permission is required to post here. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

@TheRedneckProfessor may be able to beam you in. Permission is required to post here. 

I'm working on it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Try it now, @LeiaBryant

[LeiaBryant]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Try it now, @LeiaBryant

It worked thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

It worked thanks.

Glad I could help.